Hou v. Wang

Filed 7/19/06 Hou v. Wang CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David M. Rothman, Judge. (Retired Judge of the L.A. Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Law Offices of Donald M. Adams, Jr., and Donald M. Adams, Jr., for Plaintiff and Appellant Hein Jen Hou.

Riley & Reiner, Ira Reiner and Douglas D. Winter, for Defendant and Appellant James Wang.

_______________

The trial court awarded Hein Jen Hou $75,000 in compensatory damages following a bench trial based on its finding James Wang had defamed Hou when he stated Hou had raped women. Wang appeals, contending the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's findings his statement was false and he acted with actual malice in making it. In a cross-appeal Hou contends, based on a variety of theories, the trial court should have found Wang liable for defamation with respect to additional statements and the court erred by declining to award punitive damages and dismissing his cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Complaint

On August 8, 2000 Hou, a Buddhist monk leading a temple in the Monterey Park area, filed a complaint against Wang, a prominent member of the Chinese Buddhist community and of a neighboring temple, alleging causes of action for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation. According to the complaint, in 1998 and 1999 Wang falsely accused Hou of criminal conduct in raping Joyce Hsu and Joanne Yen, which caused Hou's arrest in July 1999, charged with three counts of rape and one count of grand theft, and his incarceration for approximately one month until the charges were dismissed after a preliminary hearing.[1] Hou also alleged Wang had made false statements to members of the Chinese Buddhist community in southern California that Hou had stolen money and had raped both Hsu and Yen. Hou sought compensatory and punitive damages.

2. Wang's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication and the Trial Court's Ruling

Wang moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication contending Hou could not establish all the required elements as to any of his causes of action. In opposition Hou presented evidence and argument in support of his various causes of action and, with respect to the defamation claim, requested leave to amend the complaint to include additional statements Wang had allegedly made about him after the filing of the original complaint. The trial court denied Wang's summary judgment motion, finding triable issues of material fact existed on the defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, but granted summary adjudication on the malicious prosecution cause of action because Hou presented no evidence Wang had commenced or instigated the criminal charges brought against Hou in July 1999. The trial court granted Hou's request to amend his complaint and ordered the complaint amended to include testimony, submitted with Hou's opposition to summary judgment, that Wang had told an acquaintance at a dinner party in March 2001 that Hou â€